HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR
I.T.T.A. No.458 OF 2014
DATED: 24.07.2014 Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Hyderabad … Appellant And M/s.Green Fire Agri Commodities Limited … Respondent THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR I.T.T.A. No.458 of 2014 JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble The Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Tribunal dated 27.11.2013 passed in I.T.A.No.516/Hyderabad/2013 in relation to the assessment year 2006-07 on the following suggested questions of law.
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in setting aside the order passed by the jurisdictional Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act 1961 when the subject assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue and liable to be revised under Section 263 of the Act?
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, whether the Hon’ble Tribunal (ITAT) is correct in law in holding that the subject assessment order was not prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue nor erroneous as the Export proceeds have been brought into India within the extended time stipulated by Reserve Bank of India (RBI) relying on the circular issued by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) under Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA Act) when there is no such provision under the Income Tax Act 1961?
In this case, the Tribunal on fact found that the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Income tax Act, 1961 by the Commissioner was not legally undertaken and the Assessing Officer has followed the correct position of law. After appreciation of fact, the Tribunal also found that the issue was covered by the decision of Bangalore Tribunal in the case of HCL EAI Services Ltd. v. Deputy
[1]
Commissioner of Income Tax
and the same squarely applies to this case. Therefore, the element of prejudice to the interest of the Revenue is missing. Accordingly, the order of the Commissioner was set aside.
We are of the view that the rule of consistency and the legal principles have been followed by the Tribunal. It is not the case before us that the decision of the Bangalore Tribunal has been upset as yet.
We therefore dismiss this appeal having found no element of law involved in this appeal. No order as to costs.
24th JULY, 2014.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J
kvni
[1] (2013) 35 taxmann.com 146